In message <off00330a3.388a0ed2-on8625740f.004dd2de-8625740f.00504...@apcc.com>, dated Mon, 17 Mar 2008, [email protected] writes:
> The loss of the ground connection is treated differently because it >is virtually undetectable under normal conditions of use. It isn't the only undetectable fault, either. >I agree that a single fault has occurred, but the user doesn't know it. >The product could be used for years in this state until there is a >second fault which could then energize the chassis can cause injury. Yes. > The product is used as if no fault has occurred, so I would treat the >next fault that happens as a single fault. I don't think that is logical, and it makes explaining the situation virtually impossible. I tried to get a statement about 'persistent undetectable fault' and 'subsequent unrelated fault' into IEC 60065, but there was not enough support. It's difficult to write about it without verging on scaremongering. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk For very important information, please turn over. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
